Category Archives: General

Post navigation

I had the great honour to meet and discuss a wide range of issues with European Commissioner for Competition, Margrethe Vestager, during her recent visit to Dublin. After our dinner, I presented her an award for her role in promoting Women in Leadership. The event was hosted in Dublin by European Movement Ireland, Sodexo Ireland, and the Central Bank of Ireland.

Yesterday, 12th October 2018, Jillian van Turnhout was awarded with the honorary fellowship of the Faculty of Paediatrics, the highest honour the faculty bestows.

It is conferred on individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the practice of paediatrics and also to individuals who have made significant contributions to improve the lives of children.

Dr Ellen Crushell, dean of the Faculty of Paediatrics, paid tribute to the new honorary fellows: “We are delighted to confer Honorary fellowship to four deserving candidates in recognition of their activities, advocacy and work for the benefit of children in our society.”

Jillian is joined by Joe Schmidt, a New Zealand-born rugby union coach – currently the head coach of Ireland, paediatric ophthalmologist, Professor Michael O’Keeffe and paediatric oncologist, Professor Sir Alan Craft.

Jillian van Turnhout commented upon receiving the award:

“I am chuffed to receive the tribute of an Honorary Fellowship by the Faculty of Paediatrics of the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland. It is “in recognition of your significant contribution to children’s health and wellbeing, through advocacy and in particular your work in the area of promoting children’s rights nationally and internationally.” It was a great honour to receive this award along side Dr Michael O’ Keeffe, Joe Schmidt, and Prof Sir Alan Craft.”

Minister says she will restore funding when assured governance at required standard

Minister for Children Katherine Zappone has appointed former senator Jillian van Turnhout to assess the implementation of Scouting Ireland’s governance reforms.

Ms Zappone informed the Dáil that “I have asked Jillian van Turnhout as an independent expert to examine this situation over the coming weeks”.

She said: “In accordance with her terms of reference she is being asked to provide me with a clear assessment of the adequacy of Scouting Ireland’s governance arrangements and to advise me on whether I can be assured about scouting Ireland governance and related matters.”

Ms van Turnhout, a former chief executive of the Children’s Rights Alliance and former chief commissioner of Irish Girl Guides, was appointed in the last few days, the Minister said.

She will work with the Minister to ensure the pledged reforms by Scouting Ireland of their governance process “are in the best interests” of the organisation.

This follows the controversy over the handling by senior members of the organisation of a rape complaint in 2016. Four senior volunteers have temporarily stood aside after they were criticised in a confidential review by child protection expert Ian Elliott.

Mr Elliott’s review led to the establishment of a barrister-led inquiry of the handling of the complaint, in which an adult volunteer in 2016 claimed she was raped by a male leader on a camping trip in 2009.

Ms Zappone said Scouting Ireland had pledged to implement all the recommendations of Mr Elliott’s report but “a lot of work” and action had to be completed and Ms van Turnhout will keep her informed about that implementation in the coming weeks.

Confidence

Labour’s Sean Sherlock asked if the Minister had full confidence in the process underway in Scouting Ireland and in relation to historical cases, following reports that a file had been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) over an alleged case of child sexual abuse during a scout camping trip in 2014, at Larch Hill, south Co Dublin by an active male leader in the organisation.

Mr Sherlock asked if there was “only one sample cases or are there other further complaints”.

He also asked the Minister when she would restore funding to the organisation and if she acknowledged the work of the thousands of volunteers in the organisation.

Mr Sherlock added that there “seems to be a disparity between what happens at the head of the organisation and the bottom of the organisation”.

Ms Zappone said that all her actions were guided by her “deep respect” for the volunteer ethos of the organisation.

She said she had funded Scouting Ireland until the end of June. They had received €430,000 this year in State funding. “Scouting Ireland have informed me that they have reserves,” she said.

But Ms Zappone said when she is assured “that I can accept their governance, at that point I will restore their funding”.

She said she had not seen Mr Elliott’s report and expected to receive his review with the inquiry report, which is due at the end of May. She said it would be useful if the report was published, but usually legal advice was necessary for this.

I recently completed my INSEAD International Directors Programme and was honoured to receive my Certificate. This further strengthens my Corporate Governance experience, enabling me to serve companies as an effective member of their supervisory boards or help them review their governance structure and/or processes.

The INSEAD Certificate in Corporate Governance (IDP-C) is a global credential for board members operating internationally

The International Directors Programme is INSEAD’s flagship course in corporate governance that aims to develop effective directors for the global business scene. Today’s supervisory boards have to contend with a host of new pressures, challenges and risks in addition to evaluating the performance of the CEO and senior executives. They must therefore set the company’s strategic direction, often across diverse product markets and geographies, and monitor the firm’s risk profile.

Set within an international context that is unique in director education, the programme offers practical and tested frameworks and tools to sharpen judgment and decision-making skills. It also augments the oversight abilities of directors seeking to boost their existing competencies or to be better prepared for new board mandates. It enables its graduates to master strategies for the following fundamental areas: board effectiveness and dynamics; board decision-making and oversight; and director effectiveness and development.

About INSEAD

INSEAD is one of the world’s leading and largest graduate business schools. INSEAD offers participants a truly global educational experience. With campuses in Europe (France), Asia (Singapore) and Middle East (Abu Dhabi), and alliances with top institutions, INSEAD’s business education and research spans around the globe. Our 145 renowned faculty members from 40 countries inspire more than 1,400 students in our degree and PhD programmes. In addition, more than 11,000 executives participate in INSEAD’s executive education programmes each year.

INSEAD’s innovative programmes are internationally recognised. Of particular note, the Financial Times has ranked INSEAD as the #1 MBA programme in the world for two years in a row (2016 & 2017).

My graduation

Below you can see two collages of the ceremony at which I received my Certificate.

Children’s Rights Alliance lecture marking the work of Jillian van TurnhoutSenator in Seanad Éireann from 2011 to 2016in The Ark, A Cultural Centre for Children

13 April 2016

Speech by Jillian van Turnhout

Thank you Children’s Rights Alliance for this wonderful opportunity to reflect on my path to children’s rights advocacy and my term of office in Seanad Éireann.

So, what can you expect from this evening? I plan to start by sharing a bit about myself and my journey. I will use some of the legislation we dealt with in the Seanad to offer insights into both success and failure and how best to avoid the latter. I hope you will find it interesting and to the NGOs in the room, I hope it will help you both understand life inside the bubble and how best to shape it.

As I look around the room I see so many friends and supporters. I know I couldn’t do what I do without you. On this note I want to begin by giving a very special thank you to my husband Michael who is my rock. A huge thanks to my Mum, Jenny Hassett and my late Dad Michael Hassett for always believing in me and nurturing the eternal optimist in me who believes she can make the world a better place. To my brothers John and Gerry for the reality checks and keeping me grounded. And to my sisters-in-laws Philo and Gina for always cheering me on. My Researcher and Assistant in the Seanad over the last 5 years, Amy McArdle, is also here tonight and I want to pay her a special thanks for all her support and expertise as our time working together comes to an end. Amy, I wish you good fortune as you move to your exciting new challenge.

My Dad lost his Mum at the age of 8 and lost his Dad less than 3 months later following a bicycle accident. Unbeknownst to him, my Mum, living only a short distance away, would soon be grieving the loss of her Dad. So much tragedy in their early years and both tell of how narrowly they escaped a fate in one of the children’s institutions we are only too aware of today. They were lucky you see. They both had strong, determined adults who believed in them. So, while they grew up in hardship, they grew up knowing they were loved. This is the gift they gave to me and my brothers, the gift of growing up wrapped in love. When asked what one thing I would want for every child? My answer is always “to have an adult who believes in them fully and strives with them to realise their dreams”. It has taken me until now to realise that their experience, and the experience they gave to us their children, was a key factor drawing me to children’s rights.

For the first 12 years of my career I worked in the private sector but throughout this time I was working with children and young people in a voluntary capacity not least through my involvement with the Irish Girl Guides. Anyone who knows me knows I’m a Girl Guide! I have endeavoured in every role and position I have held to date to live by my Guide Promise and Law to ensure that “I think of others before myself”.

Just over 20 years ago I was elected as Secretary General to one of the then three European youth platforms – it brought together all the International Youth Organisations at a Council of Europe level. Over three years I worked in Brussels with the leadership of the other two youth platforms to successfully merge into the European Youth Forum – a sole platform for youth organisations across Europe.

On returning to Ireland I was honoured to be elected as President of the National Youth Council of Ireland. Now, I know I’m showing my age here but I remember getting my first mobile phone in this role and the excitement of waiting for it to ring. I also remember doing my first radio interview and my Mum, who remains my dedicated media consultant to this day, giving me her first piece of advice “I hope you are not going to be one of those moaners who is always complaining. If you want to be a game changer then you need to focus on how to solve the problems”.

I went on to be a member of the European Economic and Social Committee which is an advisory body of the EU and was honoured to be elected to the position of Vice President. As part of my work on the EESC I was a member of the EU-China Round Table, which took me back and forth to China over several years. In this role I was the rapporteur on its Children’s Rights Report.

I still remember my job interview in the Central Hotel for the Children’s Rights Alliance in May 2005. I remember thinking it was a long shot since my professional experience until then was primarily in the private sector, albeit with the advantage of significant performance driven results expertise, but still it was only my voluntary work that was directly relevant to the work of the Alliance. Perhaps I needed to think more like a man and focus on all the things I could offer.

In accepting the role I met every metaphor going-baptisms of fire, roads hit running, and deep ends plunged. Within my first year in the Alliance we produced a Shadow Report and had appeared before the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, we also produced a children’s report to the Committee and had agreed a Social Partnership deal entitled, somewhat optimistically, “Towards 2016”.

In my time in the Alliance I worked with many wonderful and talented people and I would like to take this opportunity to wish one of them, Maria Corbett, every success with her exciting new venture. Maria recently announced she is going to take up a full time PhD with NUIG to examine the process of how we decide to take children into care. I can’t think of a better person for the job. During this time, I also developed a great relationship with Prof Geoffrey Shannon whose legal expertise I have always appreciated. Thank you both for your firm and lasting friendship.

It was on taxi ride through Shanghai’s equivalent of Temple Bar in 2011 that I received the fateful phone call from the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, inviting me to accept his nomination to the Seanad. I hope you will appreciate just how surreal a moment that was for me! To this day I remember clearly him stressing that he wanted me to be truly independent and keep my own voice.

So this evening, in the spirit of ‘keeping my own voice’ I intend to peel away some of the layers of legislative mystery. While the Seanad transcripts will give you the “record” of how various Bills pass through the House, I will give you a behind the scenes look at what really influenced and shaped some of the legislation I worked on.

Finance (Local Property Tax) Act 2012In preparing for the Local Property Tax Bill in 2012 I knew that many children and youth organisations owned residential venues and was concerned they would face paying significant Property Tax bills. I rang the Department of Finance to explain my concerns. As it happened, the Official I spoke to had had a daughter in the Girl Guides and got exactly what I was talking about. In December 2012 I tabled an amendment to the Bill to exempt venues owned by children and youth organisations from the Property Tax. The Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan TD, did not accept my amendment but did commit to come back with an amendment to achieve the same aim in a few months. I took him at his word and in March 2013 he came back and granted the exemption and specifically cited Guiding and Scouting as an examples of why he was doing so.

As we all know, there is often a disconnect between law making and the practical reality on the ground. There is no better feeling in the world than knowing you have bridged that disconnect and won a victory for civil society.

Protection of Children’s Health (Tobacco Smoke in Mechanically propelled Vehicles) Bill 2012On New Year’s Day 2016, the Protection of Children’s Health (Tobacco Smoke in Mechanically Propelled Vehicles) Act of 2014 came into effect in Ireland. This legislation extends the workplace ban on smoking to all vehicles where children are present. The impetus for this important legislative change was in fact the Protection of Children’s Health from Tobacco Smoke Bill 2012, which I initiated with Senators John Crown and Mark Daly with the support of John’s assistant Shane Conneely. We started the process optimistically in spring 2012 with a view to its passage before the summer recess. Instead what ensued was months of tedious meetings and games of tag with John Crown stressing the urgency of the Bill, Mark working the political aspects and me bringing the children’s rights expertise but also the diplomacy necessary to calm the waters and steady the ship. Each of us played to our strengths. In the end, some three years later, even though only a handful of words from our original Bill remained due to amendments but we got it over the line.

Adoption (Identity and Information) Bill 2014Tens of thousands of Irish adoptees don’t know their original names, who their parents are or their medical history. In November 2014 I co-sponsored legislation with Senators Averil Power and Fidelma Healy Eames to recognise the right to identity of adopted children.

As an adopted child, an adoptive parent and a children’s rights advocate, we each brought our own unique perspectives to the table. Thanks to cross party support in the Seanad we persuaded Government to allow the Bill pass through Second Stage (no mean feat!!).

For those who are not au fait with the legislative process, there are 5 Stages in the passage of a Bill but it is the middle 3 that are the most substantive. In short:

First Stage initiates the Bill and gets it on the agenda of the first House (Dáil or Seanad);

Second Stage is the general debate on the purpose, intention and scope of the Bill;

Third Stage (aka Committee) goes through the Bill section by section and considers individual amendments;

A successful Bill then goes to the other House, and follows stages two to five and then hopefully it is enacted into Law. Many Bills, particularly those not initiated by Government, fall or stall at one hurdle or another…and some reappear as a Government Bill down the line!!

Back to our Adoption Bill and we are now at Committee Stage the third stage of the Seanad process. Unusually, since we were the authors of the Bill, we had tabled a considerable number of amendments to address issues raised by the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, James Reilly, at Second Stage. Averil and I worked as a tag team and it was the one and only time I occupied the Fianna Fáil front bench seats in the Seanad. It became clear as we were working through the amendments that the Minister and his officials had decided to neither engage nor oppose our amendments.

While this was allowing us to whiz through the changes we proposed it was all very bizarre. It was at this point I got a text message from an Official in the House kindly pointing out that the schedule did not limit us from pushing the Bill through all stages. So, following a speedy consultation with Averil, we agreed to give it a go but not before giving the Minister his opportunity. I took to my feet and asked the Minister if he would be willing to engage with us on our Bill before Report Stages, which we were willing to take another day otherwise we would progress all Stages.

At the end of Committee Stage we asked again and there was still no comment. So we pressed ahead to Report Stage and then with thanks to the Government Senators jumped the final hurdle and took the fifth and final stage. These last two stages took all of 30 seconds maximum.

We now had a powerful tool in our armoury on the Right to Identity for all adoptees. We had a Bill that had passed unopposed through all stages in the Seanad. Surely the Dáil could pick it up and amend it if and where necessary.

Our efforts pushed the Minister and the Department to publish its own Heads of Bill on Adoption (Information and Tracing). The Heads had come a long way from formerly stated positions. There are still obstacles, which were highlighted during the excellent hearings by the Health and Children Committee and detailed in its subsequent report. There are over 50,000 adult children whose right to their identity could soon be realised. This issue is a ticking clock as many are aging and many not see the legislation published let alone enacted. It is urgent.

Immigration (Reform) (Regularisation of Residency Status) Bill 2014Passing legislation is never easy and unfortunately things don’t always go to plan! Case in point, a Bill proposed by Senator David Norris and myself to provide a pathway to residency for asylum seekers who have been awaiting a decision on their protection application for 4 years or more. We had worked on the substance and intention of the Bill with a number of individuals and organisations working with refugees and migrants. We knew the Bill we initiated wasn’t technically perfect but we hoped for the support of the House to move the Bill to Committee Stage where the necessary changes could be made. However, Senator Norris and I were blindsided by Sinn Fein. They had been approached by another NGO working in the area who did not agree with the use of the term ‘amnesty’ and so lobbied to block its passage. Sinn Fein voted with Government against the Bill and we lost the passing of Second Stage by 1 vote. We never expected our Bill to pass into law rather we saw it as an important opportunity to highlight the appalling reality of Direct Provision and to put pressure on the Department of Justice and Equality to act.

I appreciate the motivation of the NGO concerned but I still think it was a short sighted step that showed scarce respect for their fellow NGOs and more importantly removed an important lever to effect change.

Children and Family Relationships Bill 2015The Children and Family Relationships Bill really illustrates the importance of collaboration and I wish to commend the Children’s Rights Alliance not only for their work on this Bill but for their unstinting support and expertise during my tenure. Tanya Ward, Chief Executive, has proven her leadership, vision and acumen in spades since taking over the reins in 2011.

The Children and Family Relationships Bill was tabled and debated against the backdrop of the impending Marriage Equality Referendum. This coloured much of the debate on the Bill but this legislation was so much more. It represented the most significant reform of child and family law for a generation and finally put children at the heart of family law.

I watched in admiration as the Alliance united voices by forming a working group of members with diverse views to analysis and co-ordinate advocacy action. They provided briefings and strategic communications at every level needed to effect changes to the Bill. The Alliance built consensus amongst their membership, generated media and organised events. Indirectly their work built consensus and support for the recognition of LGBT people as parents. At this point, I also commend Minister Frances Fitzgerald TD, Minister for Justice and Equality who personally steered this legislation through both houses. It took 30 hours in Seanad Éireann alone.

As I talk about the Marriage Equality Referendum one of my greatest regrets in office is that we could not embody the same level of public engagement when it came to the Children’s Referendum. The closest I got to tapping into mass public sentiment was when I took on Child Beauty Pageants. I was inundated with support from parents and the public. It showed me there is a strong public appetite to protect childhood but we haven’t been able to able make the link in the public mind with children’s rights.

Marriage AgeNot everything must be done through legislation. Tabling Motions under group speaking time can be equally effective. In May 2014, we had a Seanad debate on the abducted schoolgirls in Nigeria that Boko Haram had threatened to sell into forced child marriage. I took this opportunity to voice my concern that exemptions to the marriage age in Ireland mean that, strictly speaking, child marriage is not prohibited here.

In June 2014, Senator Ivana Bacik brought forward a Motion calling on the Government to remove the court ordered exception to the legal age for marriage of 18. Aware of my own interest in this children’s rights anomaly, Ivana invited me to second the motion and I detailed how in 2012 28 child marriages were permitted to take place in Ireland. Just before Christmas the Government committed to setting the marriage age to 18 without exceptions. I hope this is brought into law soon.

On a side note, I must take this opportunity to thank Ivana and wish her every success in her Seanad campaign. I have grown in respect and admiration for Ivana – she is a great person to collaborate with. She’s whip smart and has an expert legal eye for legislative scrutiny.

My lowest momentIf you had asked me a few days before the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill I would have said that this would be my most tense vote. The debate was fractious, bigoted and filled with misinformation. Little did I know my toughest vote would be within hours of that vote.

To set the scene, we were now operating in a Seanad where the Government was in the minority and needed Independents or opposition to support them. In the short period of 3 hours leading up to my toughest vote I was shouted at in the corridor, grabbed, cornered and at one stage even pinned up against a wall – all by opposition parties and independent members– who felt they could ‘bully’ me into voting a particular way. On a side note we are all friends again. The vote in question was on a motion to delay the passage of the Referendum Bill proposing the abolition of the Seanad. If I voted with the opposition, we would delay the passage of the Bill for 90 days. However, in my head all I could think was that only six months previously we were one vote short of delaying the passage of the Social Welfare Bill that brought in the cuts to the Respite Care grant. If we couldn’t get our acts together to frustrate this utterly unfair cut, how in good conscience could we justify delaying the passage of a Bill that was about keeping our own jobs!!

No one from Government approached me about my vote. On pressing the button I voted with my gut. Along with my colleagues Senators Marie Louise O’Donnell and Fiach MacConghail we made the difference and ensured the vote for the Referendum would be put to the people. The footage of the day will show how I was jeered and shouted at by opposition for being a ‘traitor’. Funny how they changed their view when the people of Ireland gave the Seanad a mandate.

IndependentBeing independent should not mean you are automatically in opposition. As a Taoiseach’s nominee I had to work out what independence meant for me? From the outset I believed it meant dealing with issues on merit. I voted with the Government where possible and clearly articulating my position where not. In the end we were operating in a minority Seanad and so each time I voted it counted – a power I had to use wisely.

Following my low point in the Seanad I was feeling increasingly isolated from both the Government Senators and Opposition Senators. Some Government Senators felt I should automatically vote with them as I was a ‘Taoiseach’s nominee’. Coupled with this I felt an increased sense of responsibility as the people of Ireland had voted to keep the Seanad.

So, I sought a meeting with the Taoiseach and despite everyone thinking we were in regular contact this took a few months to set up. In fact, prior to this meeting the only advice I received from him was during my first days in office to pick a few key issues and stay on them if you want to effect change. Sound advice that I endeavoured to follow.

I met the Taoiseach and he listened. I explained my frustration with the system, with trying to put forward amendments and feeling I was working in an echo chamber. He repeated the advice he gave me when he first appointed me “I want you to be yourself and be Independent”. It was only when I reached out that he leaned in to help and provide support to me.

Following this meeting he set up a weekly meeting for me with an advisor from his Department. The only thing he asked was where possible I would give advance notice when I was not in a position to support the Government. The payback for doing this was access to influence and in particular securing wins on a number of policy fronts. At no stage during my time as a Senator has the Taoiseach ever tried to influence my vote.

ReformThere is much debate and talk about Reform. I find most Members are very happy to discuss any aspect of reform that won’t directly affect their lives. I believe that reform begins with the individual. I decided when I started to take a new approach to politics and so used my social media – twitter primarily – to account for my work and I also publish each year a statement of my salary and allowances to ensure maximum transparency. Indeed, each year I return the unspent portion of my allowance and as there was no procedure up until last year I had to ‘gift’ it back to the Department of Finance.

An example of some of the reform introduced in my time is pre-legislative scrutiny to a significant number of proposed laws. This allowed for Committees to bring in experts, civil society groups, public officials and the Minister responsible to provide testimony.

Health and Children CommitteeMy experience is on the Health and Children Committee. In reality only five or six members keep each committee going. If you attend for one minute or three hours your attendance is recorded in the same way. I was fortunate that my Committee was under the excellent chairmanship of Jerry Buttimer who ensured we worked collaboratively and respectfully. I am very proud of our work, much of it in areas I have already highlighted, but additionally our hearings on End of Life Care. I hope the report we published will come to fruition.

Many NGOs supported my work at the Committee. A particular thanks to Chris Macey of the Irish Heart Foundation and Angela Edghill of the Irish Hospice Foundation. Their advocacy expertise was so helpful especially in my early days as was Chris’s sage advice when I was faced with a legal threat from tobacco industry stooges.

In a similar vein, I was happy to draw on my European experience in challenging the alcohol industry and its attempts to frustrate and stymie legislative efforts to address alcohol related harm. The drinks industry has a role – to make profits for its shareholders. They have no role, whatever guise they choose to wear, in the formulation of health policy. I think my views are clearly known.

ConstituencySenators shouldn’t have constituencies. Certainly not geographical ones. As an independent Taoiseach’s nominee I definitely didn’t have one but I did endeavour to use the platform I was given to continue working with NG0s, civil society organisations, community and voluntary sector organisations and interested members of the public to help achieve our shared objectives. I want to thank each and every one of you who has helped and supported Amy and I throughout the past five years across a broad range of issues. Your insight and expertise has been essential to the quality of our input and in helping us to convey the reality on the ground.

One thing I would stress to you is the importance of collaboration. It is the missed opportunity I see all too often in Leinster House. An organisation will come to meet me in my Seanad office and say “A is critically important” and then the next day another group within the same sector will come to me and say “B is the most important”. These groups need to work together to determine and agree the priorities, not offer a choice for politicians to decide.

Coin drop machineOne of the greatest privileges of being a Senator is the opportunity to meet and engage with a wide range of peoples who bear witness to their personal circumstances. We
have done so much damage in the past and the only way we can truly demonstrate we have learnt from our mistakes is through the actions we take now. I wish I had a magic wand or a do-over. Instead I feel I am operating one of those coin machines you see in arcades. You have to put a lot of coins in to hit the tipping point for change.

There are many issues where I feel I have put in a considerable amount of coins but we have yet to see progress. In particular, I highlight the situation for transgender, non-binary and intersex children. In 2015 Ireland passed ground breaking gender recognition legislation into law. However, it is silent when it comes to children under 16 –despite my efforts to introduce an interim gender recognition mechanism. Minister James Reilly has committed his Department to doing more research in the area in time for the review of the Gender Recognition Act in 2017. I am also sitting on a Working Group hosted by TENI and hope with several others to ensure children have a voice and a place in our laws.

ShelterI cannot leave today without mentioning the untenable homelessness crisis faced by children and their families, which is compounded by the shortage of social housing and the State’s failure to regulate the private rental sector. It is incumbent on us to ensure all children – homeless children, children from the Traveller community and children in Direct Provision – have secure and appropriate accommodation.

Corporal PunishmentI want to end on a high and the achievement of which I am most proud- havingchampioned and secured the effective ban on the physical punishment of children in Ireland. A few months before this win a high level official in the children’s area told me that it would be impossible. I succeeded by drawing on all in my armoury – all that I have amassed and using every ounce of social and political capital I had built up. I have documented the official story in the Irish Journal of Family Law but let me take you behind the scenes here.

As early as 2011 I had spoken in the Seanad on the need for Ireland to repeal the defence of reasonable chastisement and I continued to raise the issue throughout my tenure. Behind the scenes I researched the issue, drew on International experiences and identified the piece of Legislation I would use as my vehicle. The Children First Bill was perfect as it was about child protection and yet it contained no penalties or sanctions and so no one could say I was trying put parents in jail. I also knew the Government would work to ensure this Bill was brought into law as it was a key plank of its reform of child welfare and protection.

The Committee Stage of the Children First Bill was taking place on 23 September last. At 10am the previous day I met an Advisor and several officials from the Department of Children and Youth Affairs to discuss my amendments to the Bill. Over the summer recess I submitted several substantive amendments and I had been waiting for this moment. In our meeting I said I was willing to concede on the other amendments but that corporal punishment was my red line. They tried very hard to dissuade me but I did not see any other Oireachtas Member willing to put their head above the parapet on this issue and so I had to do it before my time was up. Even if I lost, I intended to force a vote and let the record show who in the Seanad was willing to be listed as saying it is acceptable to hit children. It was a tense meeting.

At 4pm that same day, I was invited to meet Minister Reilly and the Secretary General of the Department. My persistence on the issue meant he had spent the day trying to find a way forward through discussions with his officials and the AG. In that meeting he gave me a commitment he they would do the change but I needed to buy them some time to work out the how. We agreed that I would postpone a vote at Committee Stage but one way or the other we would be voting on an amendment at Report Stage.

I had been working with the NGOs and in particular the Children’s Rights Alliance, ISPCC and Mummy Pages who were all outstanding in playing a subtle but vital role in getting the ban on corporal punishment over the line. It worked, with thanks to my fellow Senators who all supported me; the NGOs and children’s rights advocates; and some really outstanding civil servants and advisors.

Through this action the Government has put children first and provided leadership that will hopefully give confidence to other countries across the globe, including our nearest neighbours, to protect children from violence.

There is so much more I could mention but let’s keep it for another day! It has been a roller-coaster ride that I feel so privileged to have been on. I learnt so much, not least how to hold my nerve and persevere with my eyes fixed firmly on the goal. I believe I made the most of the opportunity. I worked extremely hard to effect the most change I could. I don’t know what my future holds but as ever I am optimistic and confident that I will rise to my next challenge.

I would like to thank my fellow Senators from across the house for their collaboration and cooperation. It has been an immense honour. Most of all I wish to thank all of you for your input and support during my tenure. Thank you the Children’s Rights Alliance for giving me an opportunity to share my experiences and to the Ark for providing such a wonderful venue. Thank you ALL.

I was delighted to be asked to launch this exhibition, Modern Wife, Modern Life, curated by Ciara Meehan senior lecturer in history at the University of Hertfordshire, which explores the representation of women in Ireland through the prism of women’s magazines in the 1960s.

This is such an interesting concept for me and a unique way of documenting a period of Irish history where woman’s lives were almost exclusively restricted to the private domain, where “traditional values” prevailed, women were legally obliged to leave their public sector employment upon marriage, were prohibited from sitting on a jury and for whom many were too young to know or remember the one and only female Minister (Countess Markievicz 1919-1922).

Yet, in parallel, we see magazines such as Woman’s Way, Woman’s Choice and Woman’s View promoting new expectations alongside traditional moral norms, challenging women to negotiate competing demands on minds and bodies in their everyday lives.

It is fascinating to learn that in the 1960s, the media trend was to sell women the idea that the “ideal wife” was synonymous with the “modern wife” and that in order to achieve this coveted title she must have and use the latest gismos and gadgets in her home, particularly in the kitchen.

We have an example of one of these then “New Technologies” on exhibit, Rita MacCready’s sewing machine, which she bought from a door-to-door salesman and, like many mothers in the 1960s, used to make her children’s clothes. Rita’s daughter Audrey is here with us this evening and it would be interesting to know if her mother’s love of haberdashery or sewing rubbed off on her?!!

Despite the “traditional view” of the woman’s place being in the home and ideally married still being enshrined in the Irish Constitution, the majority recognises the view as outdated and sexist.

It did get me thinking about whether this stereotyping of 1960s women as domestic goddesses or wannabe goddesses is any more offensive than the contemporary media obsession about how women of all ages look and perform.

I had a look through the shelves in Easons yesterday evening to get a flavour of the messages Irish women are receiving from magazines in 2015:

“Fifty, fit and flirty”, “How to shift that stubborn baby weight”, “Science validates correlation between hair length and relationship length”, “bikini ready in 7 days”, and enough instructive material that I could re-write the Karma Sutra!!!

Have we really moved on or has the focussed just shifted from the kitchen to the bedroom and incessant talk of weight loss and the quest for eternal youth?!!

Are Irish women destined to be subjected to some form or other of commercial pressure forever?

The exhibition comprises 8 themes:

Inspiration, Print Culture, Advice for the Newly Married Wife, Beauty and Presentation, Housewife of the Year, New Technologies, Women Behind the Wheel and Wives who Work.

Mum and Dads Wedding:

I was drawn to the Advice for the Newly Married section of the exhibition. Admittedly because my own Mum and Dad’s wedding picture is on display.

My mum, Jenny (nee Coleman) who is here this evening married my father, Michael Hassett in the chapel of the Ursuline Convent in Blackrock, Cork in September 1962.

My dad was very involved with the Scouts in Cork and it was expected by mum’s friends from the Red Cross that the Scouts would provide the guard of honour at the wedding.

Just in case, mum’s friends had brought their Red Cross uniforms and left them in a friend’s house close to the church.

It soon transpired at the wedding that dad’s Scout friends hadn’t thought about the guard of honour and the women discreetly left the church and returned in time and in full uniform to provide the guard of honour after the ceremony.

Eileen Crawley’s wedding dress:

Not to sound too biased, but I must say how stylish I think my mum looked on her wedding day. I love her hooped mid-knee vintage style dress that was so popular in the late 50s and early 60s.

There is another splendid example of 1960s wedding dress style in the exhibition with Eileen Crawley’s wedding dress on display.

Joseph and Margaret Teeling’s Wedding:

I also love the images from Margaret (nee Thompson) and Joe Teeling’s wedding in 1965. They had met 5 years earlier as teenagers after Joe, in a remarkably romantic move for a 17 year old, quit his job in a pub to work in the Casino Cinema, where he had discovered his soon-to-be sweetheart Margaret worked.

Not even being stood up on their first date, although Margaret insists she did go the meeting spot, could dampen Joe’s interest. A second date was arranged and the rest, as they say is history!!!

Margaret and Joe just celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary on 17 February this year. A true love story and I wish them another 50 years of marital bliss.

Are you an ideal wife quiz:

Finally, I have to admit to the laugh I got reading the questions and answers of the Are you an Ideal Wife? quiz.

Question 7 asks: When he comes home from work do you (a) listen to him sympathetically or (b) tell him the troubles of your day?

Answer: You should (a) listen to him sympathetically because you have by now the diplomatic art of TIMING. Let him grouse first. Then he’ll listen to you with more sympathy.

And

Question 15 asks: You are both going to the movies. You want to see (a) and he wants to see (b). What is the solution?

Answer: Take alternative weekends. If you go to the Western with him (and pretend to enjoy it) one Saturday, the following week he should drive you to a thriller.

That’s some pretty important advice about the art of TIMING and compromise in marriage!

My favourite part of the quiz is that there are 17 questions and answers but no marking scheme. Somehow you have to work out if you are in the 100%-50% range that is “learning how to be the ideal wife” or in the less than 50% bracket that needs to “watch it”!!

Thank you Ciara for this opportunity to launch Modern Wife, Modern Life: An Exhibition of Women’s Magazines from 1960s Ireland.

I now declare the exhibition officially open and invite everyone to enjoy this important snapshot of women’s history in Ireland.

I warmly welcome this Bill in principle, which is intended to deliver greater speed and transparency and easier access, as well as to tackle excessive legal fees. It represents the most comprehensive reform of our legal structures and legal services industry in the history of the State.

We have a great responsibility as legislators to deliver this reform responsibly. I want to sound a loud note of caution at this stage about putting on a statutory footing any rules that are incompatible with competition law and in particular any rules that have already been ruled by the Supreme Court to be non-judicable and therefore not legally binding. For instance, in 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that the code of conduct of the Bar Council of Ireland is non-judicable. The reform provided for by this Bill is crucial and long overdue. We must devise an appropriate balance between the right of the public to access justice by way of recourse to a well-functioning legal profession at a fair cost, and the needs of legal practitioners to carry out their work in an appropriate and professional environment for reasonable remuneration.

We must also acknowledge that action in this regard was a prerequisite of the EU-IMF-ECB troika programme and the enactment and delivery of the Bill remain the subject of a country-specific recommendation under the EU semester process which has succeeded the troika programme. The European Commission will therefore continue to monitor the Bill’s progress closely.

In developing the Bill, both the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald, and her predecessor, Deputy Alan Shatter, have dealt with many of the most complex and significant issues in our democratic system. These include the constitutional independence of the legal professions and the role of the professions in enabling citizens to access justice and in its fair administration. I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of access to justice. I will raise two issues at this juncture, the first of which concerns costs. Access to justice for all regardless of income or background is a core democratic value, yet it has long been known that legal costs in Ireland are prohibitive for low-income families. Ireland shares with the UK the dubious honour of charging the highest legal costs in Europe. The Bill purports to deliver a new and enhanced legal costs regime that will bring greater transparency to legal costs and will apply to both barristers and solicitors.

The high legal costs regime in Ireland is caused by severe restrictions on access to lawyers. There are hundreds of barristers who are available and willing to act directly for consumers but are prevented from doing so by the Bar Council in so-called contentious matters and many other matters. A sum of €1,000 to €1,500 would get a meeting with a solicitor and an opinion from a barrister on a routine matter. That is a significant amount of money for the vast majority of people in Ireland. Many will think of it as a monthly mortgage payment, a month’s rent or a month of child care. The courts are currently awash with lay litigants who simply cannot afford to pay for formal legal representation. I am reliably informed that many barristers would be only too happy to act directly for those lay litigants for modest fees. For them, some work and some payment is better than none.

However, there is an issue concerning direct access to barristers. On closer inspection, direct access is permissible only in non-contentious cases, which represent a mere 2% of barristers’ work. The response that contentious work involves handling client money does not add up, as not all contentious work involves this. Of course, there must be rules around handling client funds. Such rules already exist in the Solicitors Act and could very easily be applied to barristers. Instead of seeing barristers leave the profession in large numbers, as happened particularly during the recession, they should be let stay and earn a living providing excellent, good value and lower-cost services on a direct professional access basis. There is no legislation on the Statute Book preventing that.

We need to exercise extreme care in putting the prevailing anti-competitive restrictions concerning barristers onto the Statue Book. Indeed, as the Bar Council itself is not currently a statutory body but a private body, I wonder why it is being put on a statutory footing at all. I remain unclear on this and perhaps the Minister can clarify it.

The second issue I wish to raise concerns the restrictions on advertising and commercial communications by lawyers. The Irish Competition Authority’s report into the competitive practices of barristers and solicitors in 2006 concluded that the legal profession was in need of substantial reform and was permeated with unnecessary and disproportionate restrictions on competition, the overall effect of which limited access, choice and value for money for those purchasing legal services. It recommended:

for both barrister and solicitor advertising that:…the existing rules should be reformed. Truthful and objective advertising gives clients useful information and helps them to choose among competing lawyers. Advertising should be controlled in a more pro-consumer manner by way of rules that focus on preventing factually inaccurate advertising or advertising which would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Despite a target date of 2008 for the implementation of the Competition Authority reforms and despite the initiation of an infringement procedure against Ireland by the European Commission in November 2013 for continuing to allow the Bar Council to maintain the restrictions it has on advertising, and a letter of formal notice in late 2014, what we see before us in the Bill, namely, in section 158, still does not comply with Article 24 of the services directive, regulation No. 25 of SI 533/2010 or the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

I am very concerned that the State’s course of action in failing to address the deficiencies and in resisting the Commission’s case since 2013 is building up a liability for the Irish taxpayer. I acknowledge the commitment by the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, in the Dáil, specifically in response to an amendment tabled by Deputy Catherine Murphy, that she will table an amendment in this regard on Committee Stage in the Seanad. I look forward to considering that amendment. I note with slight concern that the Minister spoke of finding the appropriate balance between the exigencies of the services and those of Government policy. Ireland is required to comply with the requirements of an EU directive.

I will engage on Committee and Remaining Stages but I wanted to outline the two areas which I believe need greater attention.

I hope not to use all my time. I agree with what my colleagues have said, so I will not repeat, in particular, what my colleague, Senator Mary Ann O’Brien, has said. It is important to instil confidence and trust and also that there is ease of access to information. Senator Feargal Quinn gave us some examples from the US. I wish to pick up a point raised by Senator Mary Ann O’Brien in regard to the use of SORP and compliance and the proposal that all salaries above €75,000 be declared. We have had a huge focus on chief executive officers. I have seen organisations finding a way to skew this by employing their chief executive part-time but having other officials within organisations at much higher salaries on a full-time basis.

I wish to add to what Senator Mary Ann O’Brien said by proposing that we would know all salaries above €75,000. When I talk about salaries I am talking about the remuneration package, any health insurance benefits, pension benefits and anything extra, such as cars, that are not in the normal cut and thrust. I would also like to know how much time that person is giving to that job, whether it be 100% or 50%. In that way we should know pro rata what is their salary. We have seen organisations appear before various committees which have worked only part-time for a public service and part-time for a private service and yet seem to be able to get a multiple times salary for that work.

I am somewhat concerned over the use of the term “charity”, which is being used quite broadly. My real concern is over the use of public money and how the State is funding organisations. Regardless of whether an organisation is set up as a private company or a charity, I want to know that that public money is going to good use. I want the same scrutiny to apply to them and I do not want a public company to hide behind company law and claim that as a public company it does not need to declare this.

I have a concern where the State is funding 100% or 90% of some services. In those cases should the State not run the service rather than it being called a charity? I believe there is an historical legacy for us here. We have organisations which started with really good purposes – traditionally religious organisations providing services mainly in the medical field. They have now professionalised and are running organisations with multi-million euro budgets. However, if we question their work they will rely on that historical legacy to get them out of trouble. I have a major issue with that because the same yardstick should be used regardless of the service provided. There is an issue with the State funding some organisations which historically get an increase of 2% or a reduction of 5% on the previous year. It is just up or down with the normal trend and all organisations are dealt with by way of the same measure. There is an issue where no tenders are sought and no responsibility on the State to outline what service it is expecting for its money. Let organisations come in and bid to provide those services.

Did the Minister know that the new Child and Family Agency will fund 700 organisations? I still do not know what all those organisations are. We have a responsibility and we have an opportunity to change it.

The Minister is moving as quickly as he can on the issues of the regulator and the board. While the regulator needs to be resourced it needs to be given the teeth such that if it has a concern it can address it. I have come across statements at committees or in the media which I have read repeatedly and tried to understand what they are telling us. It is like a secret code and it is necessary to parse the words. I still do not know if I understand what they are telling us or if they are telling us the truth. When the regulator is set up, some organisations will rush to compliance, but I am worried about agencies that believe they will swing around to compliance or use such terms. If the regulator is not getting the information it needs about these organisations, we need to be sure we will be able to back it up.

I totally agree with my colleagues and simply wanted to add those comments.

I welcome the Minister of State. This report is outside my work area, so it is great we can have this debate and that I can get an opportunity to hear my colleagues who have been able to provide such expertise in the drafting of the report. I thank my colleagues on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, namely, Senators Comiskey, Mooney, Mary Ann O’Brien, Ó Domhnaill, O’Keeffe and O’Neill. I join in the thanks and commendations to Deputy Andrew Doyle who chairs that committee and who brought all members together. Reading the transcripts of the debates and the report, the committee produced a final report endorsed by all.

I am part of a group which includes Senator Mary Ann O’Brien who has yet again proved her expertise in her area and demonstrated that balanced approach. I am speaking only as a consumer but we are able to have the full package as others are able to speak about different areas.

I would like to speak about a few issues concerning the recommendations contained in the report. Some of the issues were contained a Private Members’ Bill entitled the Food (Fair Trade and Information) Bill 2009, but this report goes further than that. We have heard in this debate about the importance of the food sector to the economy from the perspective of the number of people employed in the industry and our ability to continue to grow exports, which is critical now but also in the years ahead. We want to ensure we continue to have that growth but we need to look at the recommendations in the report.

It is fair to say this report seeks to address one of the main issues in the sector which is the dominance of some of the large retailers in the grocery sector. This is the elephant in the room that we are discussing today. It is an issue we need to tackle head on. There are many positives but we also need to look at some of the negative consequences and find the way forward.

I appreciate and understand that perhaps we have to look to the EU and at an all-island approach, but will we be followers or will we take the initiative and a leadership role and say what we need to do, how we protect the consumer and the producers and that what lands on our tables is good quality food? Everybody wants to achieve that, so how do we do it?

I refer to the example Senator Mary Ann O’Brien gave us about the disparity in milk in prices. I have no doubt that if we were to drill down, we would find many other examples. That raises the question as to who is winning here. It is not the producers or the consumers. There needs to be a way where, to an extent, everybody can win and where nobody has the monopoly of winning the game every time.

I very much welcome the committee’s recommendation to amalgamate, under the consumer and competition Bill, the Competition Authority and the National Consumer Agency, which has been mooted for some time. I am glad that will come to fruition because to me, as an outsider, it makes sense. The directors of the authority and the agency have been planning for this and I am glad this process can get under way formally when the legislation is enacted. That move will benefit the consumer in the long term.

Many Members spoke about profits and gave different perspectives, which is very healthy. Sometimes there is deliberate confusion in terms of people having to give their margins. Giving the profits of a company does not give one the individual price sensitivity of a margin. We need to be very careful. We expect small companies and retailers to disclose their profits and yet we are saying that large multiples can, in effect, hide them. In the UK, some major companies which have not paid their tax have been exposed. I want to know how we can be assured that Ireland gets is fair slice of the tax take for these companies. Do we connect up with the UK, Belgium and France to check if we are getting our fair share or do we rely on the companies to tell us what they are getting with no checks and balances? We have to go further on that issue and I do not accept the lobby from the large multiples on it.

We could have a big discussion on alcohol. I do not agree with Senator Barrett. We need to get serious. There is legislation in place which needs to be commenced on separating the sale of alcohol from other grocery goods. At the very least, we should commence that. We do not have to wait to discuss it or draft it.

The Minister is most welcome. It is very useful to have this opportunity to clarify the provisions we are discussing. People throughout the country are eager to know what form the banking inquiry will take. It is a welcome development that this House is being used as a forum to allow the Minister to set out exactly what is proposed.

I echo Senator Thomas Byrne’s comments on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It is important that both Houses have a role to play in this investigation. It is also important that we play to the strengths and capacities of individual Members. It may be necessary to set party membership considerations aside and consider individuals’ qualifications to participate. We all must keep in mind that our efforts in this area are for the benefit of the people.

I welcome the proposed modular approach and the timeframe that has been set down. All too often we have seen inquiries that dragged on for so long that their original purpose was eventually forgotten. However, while being mindful of the requirement to keep the inquiry tight and focused, we must also remember that we have a responsibility on behalf of the citizens of the State to find out as much information as we can. Senators Sean D. Barrett and Katherine Zappone who were singled out by several speakers for their economic backgrounds would certainly offer an expertise in these matters. I have no doubt, however, that other Senators and Deputies from various professional backgrounds also have qualities and capacities which would make them suitable for inclusion in the inquiry.